Bush: We Will Succeed in Iraq

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jun 20 2006, 11:49 AM) [snapback]274094[/snapback]</div>

Getting back to the conversation at hand - someone had made the statement that Iraq was just another Vietnam - I had posted some observations refutting that statement. I wanted to add another one or two..

I. North Vietnam returned our Prisoners of War. Seeing that those two American POW's were TORTURED to death to the point that they are trying to identify their bodies raises this one. I am waiting for the public outcry about this incident - especially from those that have continuously cited Abu Graib....... at least there no one was TORTURED to death. How many POW's will Al-Qaueda return to us.

J. Ho/North Vietnam never hid behind women and children in their firefights.
H. Ho/North Vietnam never targeted religious institutions for death and destruction.


Anyone else have any other observations separating Vietnam from our current conflict in Iraq?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Jun 20 2006, 09:12 AM) [snapback]274100[/snapback]</div>

Yet again, It's all CLINTON"s Fault. Get a life you sorry republican revisionist. it was GWB SR. JR was trying to distract USA from his family's poor foreign policy and got in deep over his head AGAIN. 6 years of a presidency and nothing to show but negatives all around. If it weren't for Clinton to blame you people would be in even worse shape.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Jun 20 2006, 01:19 PM) [snapback]274127[/snapback]</div>

You would be better off leaving the personal attack out of your post. You are right Iraq I was not Clintons fault any more than it was Bush 41's fault. The problem was the coalition that was assembled. The Arab countries that were aside us did not want any part or parcel of going into Bagdad - thus the early termination of Iraq I. I am fairly certain if there was no WTC II we would still be looking at Saddam as Chief Torturer of Iraq.

Trust me, there are enough Democratic targets to make Righties feel down right happy. To name the big one of the week: Jack Murtha -- you know the guy that wants to "redeploy" to Okinawa our forces from Iraq. I am sure you caught his Sunday AM get together with Meet the Press. He is totally off his rocker. Must be battle fatigue raising its ugly head. The Democrats would be smart to jetison him the way the did Sheehan - a bit late, but better than never. The longer they hold onto Jumpin Jihad Jack Murtha the more they look like not only defeatists and retreatists, but foreign policy strategery fools. I kinda long for a Democratic Scoop Jackson or even Hubert Humphrey - Democrats who believed in a strong America and American principles worth fighting for and the need for bipartisanism in fighting evil.

I am LONGING for Jumpin Jihad Jack Murtha to say something about his "fellow" soldiers who were tortured and murdered while POW's yesterday. I really wonder what he would say... kinda sad. But he is the Democrats military representative at this point. I also kinda a wonder, what military guy the Dems pull out of their hat next... "I am John Kerry, and I am reporting for duty" -- might as well bring our Dukakis and this helmeted head bopping around in that M1 Abrams tank - boy did he prove that a guy can actually look like a complete idiot dressed in a military uniform.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Jun 20 2006, 12:12 PM) [snapback]274100[/snapback]</div>

Does this have anything to do with Finland?
But I see it's not just spelling that's very challenging for you, history poses as many challenges, or where you too busy laughing at people's misfortunes and can't get the facts straight anymore?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jun 20 2006, 12:54 PM) [snapback]274119[/snapback]</div>

No, but I have one connecting the two. Iraq is very much like Vietnam, because despite all your nit-picking of the details, they resemble each other very closely in ONE KEY respect. They are both unjustified wars built on false pretense and deception.

The Gulf of Tonkin incident which was used as the major reason to get the US into the Vietnam conflict was contrived. I can provide links and back-up if you insist.
And before you try to deny it, the reason for the Iraq war were also contrived. The reason we were given was WMD's and the imminent threat t o the US imposed by Saddam. I remember Rumsfeld, Bush and Colin Powell telling us they had found the WMD's they knew where they were. Not true. I know you will say they were just mistaken, but their actions speak louder than anything you can sy in response. You don't need to contrive reasons and change the reasons for going to war if the war is just and justified. This is a critical lesson for the US to learn. War should not be taken so lightly as it has been by the Bush adminstration. It is serious busness, not something to be dabbled with.

You mention al-Qaeda a lot in your posts. What about them? They were not the reason we given for the war in Iraq. You want support for America's wars, then don't support people who start unjustified wars, using deception as the basis. This is recipe for failure.

 

Thank you kingofqix. My point exactly. Those who are nitpicking must support this misadventure that has cost this country 380 Billion dollars and counting. And will cause Congress to institute cut backs in education, Medicaid and every other area. Just for those of you who support this fiasco, you are right in two respects to Vietnam. This war is not like Vietnam in these two areas: Johnson didn't cut-off the injured National Guard soldiers the way Bushie has from medical care once they return from the theater of operation and we got into this disaster all on our own we didn't follow the French in country (although Eisenhower another Republican got us involved).

Thank you kingofqix. My point exactly. Those who are nitpicking must support this misadventure that has cost this country 380 Billion dollars and counting. And will cause Congress to institute cut backs in education, Medicaid and every other area. Just for those of you who support this fiasco, you are right in two respects to Vietnam. This war is not like Vietnam in these two areas: Johnson didn't cut-off the injured National Guard soldiers the way Bushie has from medical care once they return from the theater of operation and we got into this disaster all on our own we didn't follow the French in country (although Eisenhower another Republican got us involved).

Thank you kingofqix. My point exactly. Those who are nitpicking must support this misadventure that has cost this country 380 Billion dollars and counting. And will cause Congress to institute cut backs in education, Medicaid and every other area. Just for those of you who support this fiasco, you are right in two respects to Vietnam. This war is not like Vietnam in these two areas: Johnson didn't cut-off the injured National Guard soldiers the way Bushie has from medical care once they return from the theater of operation and we got into this disaster all on our own we didn't follow the French in country (although Eisenhower another Republican got us involved).

Sorry about that didn't mean to add it 3X.

Sorry didn't mean to add this 3X.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kingofgix @ Jun 20 2006, 02:00 PM) [snapback]274153[/snapback]</div>

I am glad you are counting on emotion and inuendo rather than facts here. Subjectivity is never a secure foundation to build an arguement on.

We were in Vietnam long before the Tonkin incident - we were not leaving any time soon either. It was used to INCREASE our involvement, NOT start it.

I am tired of the WMD arguement - read the Articles of War and REMEMBER both Houses voted for them overwhelmingly.

There is NO President ever that took going to war lightly - including Bush.

Why did we declare war on Germany if they did not attack us on 12/7/41?

The only recipe for failure is allowing us to lose the public opinion war - that is the war al-qaeda is fighting - and that is the battle you are aiding them in.

Again, i listed a number of reasons why Iraw is NOT Vietnam - offer your reasons why it is - or even refute the points i make....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(FBear @ Jun 20 2006, 02:19 PM) [snapback]274159[/snapback]</div>

Its ok. I did not understand your point the first time and the second and third time were no better than the first attempt. We will agree to disagree. I only ask you to support the troops and the mission because you cant do one without the other. We are in this conflict like it or not - we should not aid and abet our enemies.

I would still like you to refute my points above re: the differences between the Vietnam War and Iraq.

 

Yeah so what's your point!!! Those who don't study and remember their history are doomed to repeat the same mistakes as there predessors.

We declared war on Japan, after they attacked us. Japan was at that time was allied with Germany and Italy if I remember my history correctly. That is why we declared war on Germany. You know all for one one for all.

Both the American people and the both Houses of Congress were given cherry picked information to justify a war. Just like the Gulf of Tonkin. That information after years was found to be fabricated, this time it didn't take 30 years to discover the misinformation provided by a hawkish administration trying to justify an unjustifiable war.

Do don't give me this c**p that I depend on inuendo and emotion the facts are out there, Bushie and his cronies had Iraq in their sites prior to even being elected. Had to show Daddy how to do it correctly.

I understand why we went into Afaganistan and I supported that war. Which to date remains unfinished. Afganistan had a dictitorial regime who supported a terrorist that attacked us. The war in Iraq was justified by smoke and mirrors.

We have to find a way out and soon, as our brave soldiers are just IED and sniper fodder in a quagmire that will go on for years.

 

Someone please lock this thread as there is more heat than light being shed on this discussion!!!!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(FBear @ Jun 20 2006, 03:07 PM) [snapback]274195[/snapback]</div>

Who attacked us? OBL claimed responsibility - Yes? OBL = Al-Qaeda - Yes? Zarqawi = Al-Qaeda - yes? Zarqawi in Iraq in 2002 working on Ricen project - Yes? See the connections? Saddam supporting terrorism - yes? Like he was ALLIED with terrorism - Yes? see the connections? You are now starting to see the dots connecting - like why we declared war on germany even though they did NOT attack us.

There was no cherry picking of intellegence. The House Committee on Intellegence is Bipartisan and privvy to the same info the POTUS is. Multiple countries also thought the same including the FRENCH and GERMANS.

Easy to support a successful war. Unfortunately it was just a battle in the War on Terror just like Iraq is. I am assuming you are also a backer of staying the course there too? Especially with the Taliban arising again.

If you look at casualty rates, we are doing very well. Our kill vs killed ratio is amazing. The bad guys according to their own documents are losing!! Zarqawi is DEAD - this is huge. Iraqi forces are taking over. American troop levels are DOWN 17% from their heights last year. It is estimated that there will be further troop downsizing over the next 12 months as Iraqi troops and support systems stand up. Give them a chance to stand up - Huh? UNLIKE vietnam - these people want to be free - they are willing to fight for themselves. They are exporting oil now, electricity supply is improving, potable water has increased dramtically, there are over one hundred radio stations, 7.5 MILLION Iraqi's have telephones (vs. 833,000 during Saddams time), almost 1,000,000 have internet access, there are dozens of papers, they are building a judicial system, their economy is growing over 30% this year again - this is NOT the time to cut and run - that would be DISASTEROUS. All that is being asked is to give it a little more time and then make some judgements then - as long as the Iraqi's want us there and that the American troops support the effort themselves - I will back this battle. I say you should too.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jun 20 2006, 02:39 PM) [snapback]274178[/snapback]</div>

OK, I'll take your ponts 1 by 1.

I know we were IN Vietnam prior to the Tonkin. But we were advising the S. Vietnamese, not fighting. Tonkin was used to get us into the FIGHTING. The point is, the reasons for actually getting heavily involved in combat in Vietnam were contrived.

Of course you are tired of the WMD argument, because it shows the Bush administration to be deceptive and dishonest at best, liars at worst. So all you can do is say "you're tired of it". Well too bad for you. The facts remain.

The Bush administrations intentional deception (or lies) on WMD's preceeded the house votes. The buck stops with Bush and his initial (and successful) attempts to decieve.

Bush twisted facts, and tried to suppress facts he didn't like to get us into the Iraq war. I consider that taking war lightly, using it for his own unstated politcal agenda.

The reasons for going to war with Germany were broadly understood and supported by the American people and were not contrived. Thus the support for the war against Germany in the 1940's. What you fail to grasp is that the mere existence of a significant widespread lack of support for the war in Iraq is evidence that the reasons for war are not sufficiently clear and strong. There is support for the Afghanistan war because it is justified. There was support for WWII because it was justified. There was a significant LACK of support for the Vietnam because it was NOT justified. This will be a constant. You cannot fool all of the people all of the time. Justified wars will be supported and unjustified ones will not -period. Neither you nor I can change that.

I agree that public opinion is important when fighting a war, although I disagree that it is "the ONLY recipe for failure". That are certainly other ways to fail. The lesson we all as Americans need to learn is that war is not just another tool in the foreign policy toolbox. War should only be considered where there is clear, unambiguous and unwaivering purpose and need. If you catch yourself making up reasons for a war, its the wrong war, and it will not likely turn out well. When I catch my President making up reasons and twisting facts for war, I hold him accountable for starting the wrong war. The mistake was made with the initial twisting of facts. We are now living with that mistake, and it is sad. But supporting this wrong and sad state of affairs will only serve to allow it to happen again.

I have offered my reasons why Iraq is like Vietnam, and I don't care about how they are different. It is the single key likeness that is important. They are both unjustified wars, lacking sufficient purpose and need. And I'll anticipate your reply to this...."fighting al-qaeda is not sufficient purpose?" My answer; fighting al-qaeda is sufficient purpose for A war (Afghanistan), but it most certainly is not sufficient purpose for ANY war, and it is not sufficient for Iraq. But I suspect you are too blinded by your support of Bush to understand the very evident and consequential differences between these two wars that approximately 2/3 of the American people can clearly see.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jun 20 2006, 03:47 PM) [snapback]274220[/snapback]</div>

dbermanmd, if you base all your positions on such weak, illogical and poorly thought out reasoning, it is no wonder you fail to grasp reality.

Afghanistan under the Taliban was CLEARLY unlike any other country in the world on 9/11. The Taliban openly supported al-qaeda, allowing them to base the center of their operations and train there. There were no other countries that exibited even close to the strength of connection with al-qaeda, and to pretend that there was is simply absurd. That difference is proven by the fact that Bush didn't use a connection between Saddam and al-qaeda as the basis for the war. He did try to make a weak connection, but because it was so weak, he contrived other reasons for the war. There can be no doubt that a strong connection between Saddam and al-qaeda, if one actually existed, would have been the best and only necessary justifcation for war with Iraq.

The links between al-qaeda and Saddam were weak at best. It was documented that Bin Laden met with Saddam but was rebuffed in his attempts to establish bases there. There was no overt support for al-qaeda coming from Iraq, and there is no idealogical connection between al-qaeda and Saddam. Al-qaeda is religiously motivated, Saddam not at all.

Were there al-qaeda operatives living and plotting attacks Spain before the Madrid attack? Yes. In England before London? Yes. Isn't Florida where some of the 9/11 attackers lived and did their flight training? Maybe we should have attacked Florida? Pretty strong connection there.....Just because al-qaeda operatives are in a counrty is no evidence of a "connection" or support. Connect those dots.

What is clear are the differences between Afghanistan and Iraq. Because they are in fact quite different is why one is justified in the eyes of the majority and the other is not. And whether you fail to grasp that reality or just pretend to is irrelevant, because most people do grasp it. And that's reality.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jun 20 2006, 02:47 PM) [snapback]274220[/snapback]</div>

OOOOOHH, i get it now. we are supposed to attack all countries that have a foothold in supporting terrorist activity. Well maybe we should attack ourselves for supporting iraq in their war with iran. doh! "The new National Security Archive collection, helps fill in gaps in the record, documenting U.S. partnership with Iraq in its 1980-88 war against Iran and the acquiescence of U.S. officials, including some current Bush Administration figures, in Iraqi abuses."

just added this for a little levity.....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(FBear @ Jun 20 2006, 12:40 PM) [snapback]274212[/snapback]</div>

Dude it takes heat to cook a pancake so "If you can't take the heat git out of the FHOP kitchen."

Nothing personal just couldn't leave a straight line like that alone. Don't really agree with you but stick around anyways.

Wildkow

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Jun 20 2006, 03:20 PM) [snapback]274319[/snapback]</div>

BaHaHaHaHaHa I was waiting for that and larkin and vibe took it "Hook Line and Sinker", Sweet!

BTW the Gulf of Tonkin Incident was not just one attack but two the first one did occur the second one was not proven or disproved, just doubtful.

". . . in 1995, General Vo Nguyen Giap, commander-in-chief of North Vietnamese forces at the time, (Gulf of Tonkin Incident) disavowed any involvement with the August 4 incident, though he did confirm the August 2 attack."

Here is a more complete and accurate account of the incident. . .

http://www.usni.org/navalhistory/Articles99/NHandrade.htm

Wildkow

p.s. That's not the only Clinton unjustifiably attack another sovereign nation.

p.s.s. larkin and vibe you guys are always good for a laugh. Can't wait for your spin on this. BaHaHaHaHaHa!!!!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Jun 15 2006, 12:23 PM) [snapback]271676[/snapback]</div>

[attachmentid=3947]